This is a CTP of initiative: Participatory Budgeting Amsterdam (PB Amsterdam) (Netherlands)
The CTP concerns the reorganization of the Amsterdam municipal system with regards to its governance and administrative structure, in March 2014. Until March 2014, each district had an elected district council and an executive board with policymaking and budget authority. With the reorganisation, the district councils and executive boards were replaced by district board committees. The policymaking and budget authority was removed from the districts to the City of Amsterdam. Instead, the elected district board committees are responsible for multiple tasks, including the provision of district-specific information to the municipal board, taking control over district specific additions to regular policy and stimulation of citizen participation.
In each district, an area team of three civil servants supports the district board committee: an area coordinator, an area broker and an account manager. They are responsible for the execution of policy and communication back to the central administration. The area coordinator explains: “In principle, we do not make policy anymore; but implement and are the eyes and ears of the city in the neighbourhood. Thus, we have to take care that we know very well what is happening in the neighbourhood and to put this back to those making policy. And if policy is made, you think along and check whether it makes sense for the neighbourhood”
The installation of district board committees and the supportive area team also meant a formalization of the principles of ‘area focused working’. Area focused working stands for the capability to respond better to needs of the districts and its neighbourhoods. The specific tasks assigned to the district board committee and the area team are supposed to add up to this goal. An important formal document synthesising all area-related activities to be executed in the following year is the area plan. Such a plan is made for each neighbourhood in the district.
This CTP is considered both, negative and positive according to the area coordinator. The availability of information and the sharing of information is crucial to participatory budgeting – both were influenced negatively in at least two ways by the reorganisation. Firstly, civil servants had to reapply internally or felt that they had to proof themselves again in their existing jobs. Secondly, the network of civil servants that was working on or contributing in different ways to participatory budgeting was shaken up. As outlined by the area coordinator: “you are losing your people from whom you could get the information”. “You always had a colleague [from the department] housing, who was sitting in and whom you could ask if you had a question about housing from the neighbourhood. And now this colleagues works at a municipal department and receives orders from there, thus s/he cannot just answer the question from the neighbourhood. Or this person is gone and you need to find somebody else. Just try to find the right person, again”. On an administrative level, the municipal reorganization thus meant a reshuffling and relocating of people, departments and physical offices.
On a positive note, the CTP confirmed that the historically grown collaboration between citizens and civil servants was the right direction. Even before the reorganization, civil servants of the district Amsterdam East and inhabitants were engaging with each other, amongst others through participating in budget monitoring. The reorganization emphasized the value of their practice: “That we had even more the role of being eyes and ears of the neighbourhood. Your expertise is knowledge about the neighbourhood. You can only gain this through working together with the neighbourhood and taking them serious. In this sense, the reorganisation is again a plus for this process. It is our right to exist. If we cannot do this, or not do it good, why do we still exist as district? If we cannot get the information, then you can just abolish the districts”.
The municipal reorganization in Amsterdam took place by decree of the national government. In February 2013, the national Muncipality Law (Dutch: Gemeentewet) was adjusted, removing the authority of the municipal boards of Mayor and Aldermen to set up district councils and executive boards. This adjustment only affected Amsterdam and Rotterdam, because only these two had district councils and district executive boards installed.
Initially, the district councils were meant to be supportive structure to the central municipal structure. Over time, they developed into a separate governance layer with a large number of governors and civil servants. By adjusting the law, the Dutch national government aimed at a more powerful, lean and service oriented government, with less expenses, less civil servants and less rules.
The municipal reorganization had a large impact on the development of budget monitoring and the neighborhood budget instrument. What was evoked by the CTP was the fact that the city budgets were centralized. This had a number of consequences.
Firstly, the district lost budget authority and a district level budget with it. Thus, there was even less financial information on the scale of the district (or even neighbourhood) as before. As put by the area coordinator: “This makes it very inconvenient for budgetmonitoring to receive financial information on the level of the neighbourhood. Because it is organized more complicated, on a bigger scale and you want to have information on a very small scale”.
Secondly, municipal departments did not want to share their budgets online: “They said that ‘it is not allowed’ and ‘we only do it when everything is complete’ and this kind of stuff. This is really a critical turning point, bad luck. […] from the point of view of the administration I do understand that, but if you have to tell this to the neighbourhood, understanding goes but so far”.
These two developments meant that the participatory budgeting was put back in time – as put by the area coordinator: “It puts you a number of steps back”. The financial information, which was available in 2014 before the reorganization, had not been comprehensive either. However, it had been put online with a large disclaimer. It gave a good overview of the budget and proved to be very useful for the citizens participating in budget monitoring.
The civil servant, who had initiated the website application making financial data accessible on neighbourhood level, managed to put a part of the budget breakdown online again. In April 2015, as part of the third budget monitoring cycle, a meeting was organized where the municipality presented the available budget information. This meeting resulted in a big disappointment and let to a feeling of resentment due to the limited amount of data available: “Last year, we had much more information and one would say that you improve from there, rather than going 10 steps back”.
The lack of available budget information let the group of citizens participating in budget monitoring to focus not so much on monitoring financial information, but focus on content. According to the area coordinator, “not because they did not want to do finances, but because it [the financial information] could not be delivered by the municipality”. (see LEARNING)
As has been hinted to already, the municipal reorganization led to contestations within the municipality and in the budget monitoring process of the citizens. Among the citizens, the unwillingness of civil servants to share information led to frustration because it was blocking the budget monitoring process. The area team of the Indische Buurt played an important role in dealing with this contestation internally, towards their own organization and externally, to the neighborhood.
Due to the administrative reorganization, many civil servants had to change position and/or department leaving them in an unfamiliar situation. This decreased their willingness to share and provide information: “It always comes with a kind of fear that people have to fight their own place. And this makes knowledge a kind of power, sharing knowledge with everybody and especially with the neighbourhood is then not the easiest”.. The area team in the Indische Buurt however had not changed and – because of their involvement in budget monitoring since 2012 – they were already experienced in collaborating with the citizens. Towards their nternal organization they started to put forward their conviction: “Your product becomes better if you do it together. It is also just something that you need to do together. And this is something in which you can take along people”. They were able to persuade those colleagues who were not used to collaborate with citizens at first: “You are a mediator, a missionary promoting and advocating the way of working”.
It also seemed to be a matter of time for the civil servants to get used to their new positions and the closer collaboration with the neighborhood. According to the area coordinator: “What you notice when convincing other colleagues who were a bit afraid in the beginning; you notice that they understand that there is more clearness about the organisation. Then the fear also sort of decreases. Then there is more room for these kind of things”.
To the citizens the consequences of the CTP (such as the lack of available data) felt as a setback. The area team, which was their municipal entry point, had to deal with this setback and figure out how they could still support the neighborhoods’ initiative. “We are going to do what we can do as district. Then we just put our own budgets online, and not only the area plan, but also the basis; we just put it online. And thus not in very close collaboration with [the city]”. Along this line of thinking, the area team also made sure to use the output of the latest budget monitoring iteration as input for the area plan.
While the CTP obstructed the sharing of information, the area team was able to turn this into something positive. The integration of the budget monitoring method with the administrative procedure of drawing up the area plan led to an improvement of the collaboration: “What also was good was the trust that you give to the neighbourhood. Also with drawing up the area plan, that they received the concept first, before the Board or Alderman. ‘No, you are partner in drawing up the plan, I send it to the civil servants, to you and to employees of housing corporations who have supported in writing’ and they are asked for a first reaction which we handle and then it continues”.
Attitude and communication seemed to be key to their successful cooperation with the citizens and overcoming obstacles such as the consequences of the CTP. According to the area coordinator: “This is also a conversation that you have with inhabitants straight from the beginning, I also want to change the whole world but we will not do this in one try. Give us the time to take along this bureaucratic machine. As of the first moment in 2012, we want a lot, but I cannot get it done all at once. And if we suddenly go too fast, you need to see which steps you can take”. Besides the area team, two community leaders have played a crucial role in keeping the citizens on board and to act as intermediary between the community and the municipality.
While the municipal reorganization was to be expected, the consequences could not be foreseen at that time. According to the area coordinator: “It was an enormous reorganisation, changing a governance structure in addition to changing a complete administrative structure […] a whole lot of things have changed. We have tried to anticipate on it, but also did not know. Very long it was unclear how it would change and they are still refining”.
The negative influence it could have on participatory budgeting was expected but considered difficult to anticipate: “We had expected the negative consequences a bit, but it was difficult to anticipate on it. You have to deal with it when it happens”. While the area coordinator expected the negative influence, she did not anticipate the positive impact: “I had not expected this positive turn. Also not when we were busy, this also has to do with our changing role”.
From the reorganization of the governance and administrative structures, the area coordinator learned that it is important to take risks and follow the enthusiasm/energy of the neighborhood if one is to succeed with initiatives such as participatory budgeting. She outlines: “[…] that you do not have to be scared to join such things. That you have to take the risks. […] It always went well, it also could have gone wrong”.
Before the reorganization, the civil servants working in the districts could formulate policy and decide on budgets and expenditures. Area based working is about knowing the wants and needs of citizens, following up on these and supporting the citizens in the making and implementation of plans. The latter asks for a different mindset. This was experienced by the area coordinator when she came up with priorities to include in the budget monitoring iteration that were not formulated by the community. “If there is no energy in a neighbourhood, you already notice it now with two priorities which have originated more from us [the area team]. We have tried hard to involve citizens in these, but this did not really succeed”. She decided to take up these priorities in the area plan, but will organize a different process around them. It will be taken up in the area plan, but it will be organized in a different way. Her reasoning is as follows: “That you do not have to everything the same way. People do this in their free time and follow their interests, their heart or what they care about – you cannot impose this. That does not work”. For her, this CTP involved lots of points of contestation for the municipality and the community. She learned from dealing with these contestation, that it is paramount to not look back but move on. In her words: “To not get trapped in the discontent”.
As a result of the CTP the role of the area coordinator changed into what she considers an intermediary. In dealing with, collaborating and supporting citizens, an area coordinator is representing the municipality (being its eyes and ears). When dealing with the municipality, an area coordinator represents citizens and communicates their wishes and needs. The interviewed area coordinator was confronted with this duality at the meeting in April 2015 (see RELATED EVENTS). A civil servant was asked to inform the budget monitoring group about the financial data that was still available. She herself did not know what would be shared by her (municipal) colleague. When it turned out there was close to no financial data to be shared, she “had to align with her colleague” although she was also disappointed. Her lesson learned was that she would be fully informed next time one of her colleagues was asked to share information.
For the citizens, the lack of access to financial data (as consequence of the CTP) can be considered a learning moment. When it turned out they had to do the third budget monitoring iteration without financial data at hand, they decided to change direction. As put by the area coordinator: “This was really a turning point with the group: What does this bring us? That is when they decided to change direction away from monitoring finances more focusing on the content, on what is considered necessary. Not because they did not want to do finances, but because it [the financial information] could not be delivered by the municipality”. This change of direction proves the adaptive capacity of both the citizens and budget monitoring as a method. While the context has changed, budget monitoring was able to continue.
Stay informed. Subscribe for project updates by e-mail.
